2nd Amendment Action

[szaino]

Time to put all of our talk into effective energy.

What (who, where) should each of us do to send the message that we supprort the interpretation of the 2nd amendmant which gives individuals the inalienable right to keep and bear arms?

Outside of the normal politicians, can you send a letter directly to the SCOTUS? Here is the full text... seems pretty uncomplicated if you ask me.

Amendment II (1791)
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

 

[ephemeratta]

Time to put all of our talk into effective energy.

What (who, where) should each of us do to send the message that we supprort the interpretation of the 2nd amendmant which gives individuals the alienable right to keep and bear arms?

Outside of the normal politicians, can you send a letter directly to the SCOTUS? Here is the full text... seems pretty uncomplicated if you ask me.

Amendment II (1791)
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Inalienable. Alienable doesn't help us much.
I would hope that SCOTUS would never be swayed by letters from citizens. They're not elected legislative officials and are in place solely to interpret the law. If you're hoping to influence SCOTUS I'd focus energy on local, state, and federal legislators. They put forward the things SCOTUS and the other courts pour over.

 

[clinotus]

I dont read it that way at all. I see it as stating that its a collective right of the citizens of that state to hold ams for the benefit of that state only in regard to balance power against a standing Federal army.

 

[szaino]

Sorry that was a pretty bad typo, I fixed it.

 

[bdutton]

Is there anyplace online to read a transcript of today's arguments?

 

[PaulD]

I'm watching it now. The guy from the NAACP is arguing that the militias existed to put down slave insurections and that is no longer a fear and therefore the 2nd amendment is no longer needed. OMFG!

 

[clinotus]

Did this guy just call all supporters of the Second Amendment 'insurrectionists'? I cant believe he had the gall to say that.

Also F that NAACP guy.

 

[clinotus]

Gun control started in relation to disarming slaves or persons of color and this guy is up here preaching that its good for everyone, especially minorities, that current and future foreseeable laws still forbid blacks (and/or other minorities) from having access to guns even in self defense as a good thing.

I hope people see this and no longer support that organization.

 

[Gabe]

...What (who, where) should each of us do to send the message that we supprort the interpretation of the 2nd amendmant which gives individuals the inalienable right to keep and bear arms?....

One thing, that all of us can do: Jury nullification.

If/when any of us are selected as jurors, and the prosecution is charging anyone - even the most unsavory individuals, regardless of any other charges - with un-Constitutional weapons charges, acquit. Vote "not guilty" on the un-Constitutional charges.

Jury nullification has a rich history in this country, and although it can get hairy (IANAL), the worst that can happen is that you have some frustrated jurors and judges, perhaps even an angry judge who will insist that you judge the case based on the facts, rather than judging the law. But the jury has supreme, implied power to judge the law in question every time they sit in the jury box. There is no possible recourse from the courts for nullifying the law, it goes against the whole system of a trial by jury.

Again, IANAL, and I welcome any of our brethren in the legal profession to comment or correct, but I believe I have the salient points down. The point of nullification is judgment of the law, not the facts. The defendant may very well be dead to rights as regards the law, but that is an entirely separate subject, and its relevance depends upon the law being a good one.

In my opinion, the current gun laws, I dare say each and every one of them, violate the 2nd Amendment, and so should be nullified, again regardless of the character of, or associated criminal actions of a defendant, so if ever I am given the opportunity, I will acquit on those charges. This does go above and beyond those who believe we simply need to enforce the current gun laws rather than add new ones, but it reflects my personal view of the matter.

Your mileage may of course vary.

 

[tuna]

Remember, jury nullification (and I, too would like clarity on this from someone who KNOWS the law, as opposed to someone like me who simply reads it, and may miss an important part) will only work if we actually show up, instead of trying to find ways to get out of it.

 

[bdutton]

Oral Argument Transcript

 

[bdutton]

Thats the first time I listened to Oral Arguments. It was very interesting.

(EDIT: Forgot I had already posted the link above... sometimes I forget which forum I've posted this to.)

Its unclear which way the court will go. Certainly, Scalia, Alito and Thomas will side with the Individual rights arguments to strike doew the ban. Ginsburg and Breyer made some comments that suggests they will side on a total gun ban being reasonable.

Roberts leans in favor of the individual rights with reasonable restrictions I think. (Not a stretch I know).

Kennedy and Souter will be the difference makers.

An interesting quote from Kennedy in response to the Attorneys General argument:

JUSTICE KENNEDY: I agree that Miller is consistent with what you've just said, but it seems to me Miller, which kind of ends abruptly as an opinion writing anyway, is just insufficient to subscribe -- to describe the interests that must have been foremost in the framers' minds when they were concerned about guns being taken away from the people who needed them for their defense.

This hints that Kennedy might be in favor of clarifying and expanding the scope of Miller.

EDIT:

This quote does not hide his intentions:

MR. GURA: It's only of relevance if the Court wishes to continue reading the militia clause as informing the type of weapon which is protected.
JUSTICE KENNEDY: Well, you're being faithful to Miller. I suggest that Miller may be deficient.

 

[Gabe]

Remember, jury nullification (and I, too would like clarity on this from someone who KNOWS the law, as opposed to someone like me who simply reads it, and may miss an important part) will only work if we actually show up, instead of trying to find ways to get out of it.

Learning about jury nullification provides me with my first real sense of "civic duty" that they talk about. Aside from curiosity, until now I have not had any particular interest in getting selected to a jury until I learned about the inherent power of juries in our system.

 

[bdutton]

I thought this exchange was funny:

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Well, before you start with it, how many minutes does it take to remove a trigger lock and load a gun? Because both the gun has to be unloaded; it has to have a trigger lock under the District laws.
<snip>
MR. DELLINGER: Just a trigger lock.
<snip>
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: So how long does it take? If your interpretation is correct, how long does it take to remove the trigger lock and make the gun operable.

MR. DELLINGER: You -- you place a trigger lock on and it has -- the version I have, a few -- you can buy them at 17th Street Hardware -- has a code, like a three-digit code. You turn to the code and you pull it apart. That's all it takes. Even -- it took me 3 seconds.

JUSTICE SCALIA: You turn on, you turn on the lamp next to your bed so you can -- you can turn the knob at 3-22-95, and so somebody -

MR. DELLINGER: Well -

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Is it like that? Is it a numerical code?

MR. DELLINGER: Yes, you can have one with anumerical code.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: So then you turn on the lamp, you pick up your reading glasses -
(Laughter.)

 

[WayneWong]

I was glad to Heller Atty Gura emphasize that the preface to the second amendment - a well regulated militia - was not the sole reason for the people's right to keep and bear arms.

The DC police chief's comment about the law not being prohibitive was laughable. It's not an outright prohibition because police, retired police, and federal law enforcement are licensed..... Is that insanity or what.

I can't wait to see the decision and read the opinions.

 

[Marcus in the Darkus]

You could not, for example, say that no one may have more than 50 books. But a law that said no one may possess more than 50 guns would -- would in fact be I think quite reasonable.

Typical libtard thinking. Looks like SCOTUS sees right through it.